coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.
5.  In 2001–02 he stood trial for a drugs offence and was acquitted. He sued the State for compensation for the unfounded prosecution and pre-trial detention.
6.  The case came before the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk. By its judgments of 5 December 2003 and 21 September 2006 the court ordered the Ministry of Finance to compensate the applicant’s non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage. The judgments became binding on 2 February 2004 and 16 November 2006, but were not enforced immediately.
7.  The judgment of 5 December 2003 was enforced on 21 October 2005 when the Ministry credited the judgment debt to the applicant’s bank account.
8.  The judgment of 21 September 2006 which was enforceable as of 16 November 2006 was not enforced immediately. The writ of enforcement was sent by the court to the bailiff service two months and seven days after the judgment had become final. On the same date the bailiff service returned the writ to the court as it lacked competence to enforce this judgment under the relevant provisions of the Budgetary Code. Two months later, i.e. on 27 March 2007, the applicant sent the relevant documents to the Federal Treasury, and on 15 August 2007 the judgment debt was credited to the applicant’s bank account.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Aykhal, a town in Yakutia.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In 1991 the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying a car. The State failed to provide the car, and the applicant had to apply to a court.
7.  On 19 August 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court of Yakutia awarded the applicant 138,967 Russian roubles (“RUB”) against the Ministry of Finance. On 6 October 2003 the judgment became binding, but was not enforced immediately.
8.  On 23 October 2003 the district court mailed the writ of enforcement to the bailiff’s service. The bailiff’s service considered that the judgment should be enforced by the Ministry of Finance, and on 27 November 2003 returned the writ to the court. On 5 April 2004 the applicant collected the writ from the court and mailed it to the Ministry of Finance.
9.  On 12 August 2004 the Ministry of Finance applied for a supervisory review of the judgment.
10.  On 28 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia allowed the Ministry’s application and quashed the judgment. According tothe applicant, he received a copy of this decision on 19 March 2005.
11.  On 7 September 2005 the Ministry paid to the applicant RUB 50,247.98 under the State program of redemption of in-kind debentures.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Khabarovsk, the Khabarovsk Region.
5.  In 2000 the applicant sued the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Finance for an unfounded criminal prosecution. On 15 December 2000 the Yelizovskiy District Court of the Kamchatka Regional Court awarded the applicant damages. This judgment became binding on 22 March 2001, but was not enforced immediately.
6.  The applicant mailed enforcement papers to the bailiff’s service having territorial jurisdiction over the Ministry of Finance’s head office. The service returned the papers and explained that they should be mailed to the Treasury.
7.  The applicant mailed the papers to the Treasury, but the Treasury returned them because of several defects: the copy of the judgment was not certified, the writ of enforcement contained no time-limit, and the name of the court indicated in the papers mismatched that indicated in the seals.
8.  The applicant removed these defects and on 23 May 2002 resubmitted the papers. On 19 November 2002 the judgment was enforced.
4.  The applicants were born in 1953, 1985, and 1982 respectively and live in Krasnodar.
5.  In 1999 the applicants lost their home in Volgodonsk in a terrorist bomb attack.
6.  On 1 November 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar ordered the local authority to provide the applicants with a flat. On 19 December 2002 this judgment became binding.
7.  On the applicants’ request, on 19 February 2003 the court modified the operative part of the judgment and specified that the flat should measure at least 72 m².
8.  The local authority applied for a supervisory review of the judgment, and the enforcement of the judgment was twice stayed: from 1 April to 4 August 2003 and from 23 October to 13 April 2004.
9.  On 19 May 2004 the applicants submitted the writ of enforcement to the bailiff’s service, and on 10 September 2004 the applicants received a flat of 82.28 m².
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Tambov.
5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to social beneﬁts. Considering himself underpaid, he brought four actions against a social-security authority.
6.  On 19 June 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov awarded the applicant 16,951.58 Russian roubles (“RUB”). This judgment became binding on 4 September 2000 and was enforced on 19 February 2004.
7.  On 14 March 2001 the district court awarded the applicant RUB 56,632.25. This judgment became binding on 26 March 2001 and was enforced on 19 February 2004.
8.  On 16 May 2001 the Tambov Regional Court awarded the applicant RUB 10,926.87. This judgment became binding immediately and was enforced on 7 March 2003.
9.  On 28 May 2002 the district court awarded the applicant RUB 20,651.78. This judgment became binding on 13 June 2002. On 26 June 2003 it was quashed on supervisory review.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Arkhangelsk.
5.  The applicant lived in a council house under the threat of collapse. As the local authority had failed to resettle the applicant, he brought a civil action.
6.  On 18 December 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk held for the applicant and ordered the authority to:
“provide [the applicant’s] family of four with a well-equipped at of at least 48 m² meeting sanitary and technical standards.”
This judgment became binding on 21 January 2002.
7.  On the applicant’s request, on 21 June 2002 the district court changed the mode of execution, and ordered the authority to pay to the applicant the price of a new flat. This decision was quashed on appeal, and after a rehearing, the award was increased. On 17 April 2003 the funds were credited to the bailiff’s account.
8.  On 28 April 2003 the authority provided the applicant with a flat of 43.1 m², and the applicant agreed to move in. The authority asked the court to order it to pay to the applicant the price of the 4.9 m² shortfall in order to settle the judgment debt, but the applicant objected, and the court dismissed this request.
9.  On the bailiff’s request, on 28 April 2005 the district court reverted the mode of execution from monetary to in-kind, and since the applicant had already received the flat, the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings. On 6 February 2006 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court ordered the enforcement proceedings to resume because the flat received by the applicant was smaller than originally awarded.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Dudinka in the Taymyr (Dolgano-Nenetskiy) Autonomous District in the Krasnoyarsk Region.
6.  On 4 June 1997 the Dudinka Town Court reinstated the applicant in his position as the head of a permanent commission of the Taymyr District Legislative Assembly and awarded him wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. That judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 5 November 1997.
7.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted, but on 16 December 1997 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Mr Davydov, suspended the enforcement proceedings and notified the Dudinka Town Court of his decision.
8.  On 20 September 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow against the deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. He argued that the decision to suspend the enforcement proceedings had been unlawful. He also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
9.  On 20 November 2001 the Tverskoy District Court held a hearing. Both the applicant and his representative were present. The hearing was adjourned until 13 December 2001.
10.  The applicant’s representative attended the hearing on 13 December 2001. At the same hearing the Tverskoy District Court pronounced judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claims.
11.  The applicant’s representative appealed against the judgment to the Moscow City Court. He complained that the judgment was unfair and that the District Court had not given the applicant’s arguments due consideration.
12.  According to the Government, on 13 March 2002 the Moscow City Court sent a letter to the applicant notifying him that an appeal hearing had been listed for 10 April 2002. The Government provided the Court with a copy of that letter. The letter was not signed and bore a handwritten note indicating that it had been sent on “13 March 2001”. According to the applicant, neither he nor his representative was informed about the hearing of 10 April 2002.
13.  On 24 April 2002 the Moscow City Court, in the presence of the representative of the Prosecutor General’s office, upheld the judgment of 13 December 2001. According to the applicant, he and his representative were not summonsed to the hearing of 24 April 2002. They learned about it in May 2002 when they received the judgment of 24 April 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Makiyivka.
5.  On 25 August 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and two other individuals on suspicion of murder. On the same date the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.
6.  In December 1997 the applicant was committed for trial.
7.  On 19 March 1998 the Chervonogvardiysky District Court of Makiyivka (Червоногвардійський районний суд м. Макіївка) remitted the case to the investigative authorities for additional investigation.
8.  On 31 August 1998 the additional investigation was terminated and the case was referred back to the District Court.
9.  On 21 May 1999 the District Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.
10.  On 20 July 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court (Донецький обласний суд)[1] quashed the judgment and remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation.
11.  On 15 December 1999 the additional investigation was terminated and the case was referred to the District Court.
12.  On 2 June 2000 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation.
13.  In September 2000, after the additional investigation was terminated, the case was referred back to the District Court.
14.  On 27 October 2000 the District Court again remitted the case for additional investigation.
15.  In February 2001 the case was referred to the Regional Court to act as a first-instance court.
16.  On 24 July 2001 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
17.  On 11 July 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment.
18.  Throughout the course of the proceedings some thirty-two hearings were scheduled by the trial court. Some twelve of them were adjourned on account of one or more of the five witnesses’ failures to appear. Two hearings were adjourned in view of the authorities’ failure to bring the applicant, who was kept in custody, before the court. On seven occasions the hearings were postponed on account of the judge’s ill health.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Paşcani.
5.  On 24 March 1992 the Paşcani Court of First Instance allowed the applicant’s action and recognized his property right, together with his brothers, for a land of 8,64 ha situated in the Stolniceni-Prăjescu village. That judgment became final.
6.  On 17 March 1993 the district administrative authority acknowledged the applicant’s property right and ordered the local authorities to allow him to take possession of 8,64 ha of agricultural land. The local authorities had not performed the task and therefore the applicant brought administrative proceedings.
7.  On 18 November 1994 the Iaşi Court of Appeal, by a final decision, ordered the local authorities to provide the applicant and his brothers with a land of 8,64 ha in the Stolniceni-Prăjescu village.
8.  On 10 November 1998 the applicant and his two brothers were given the possession of 5 ha of land in the Stolniceni-Prăjescu village, namely 0,9 ha intra muros and 4,1 ha extra muros. However, on 4 June 2001 the local authorities annulled these transfers, on the grounds that they had been illegal and that third persons had already been given these lands.
9.  On 27 October 2000 the district administrative authority acknowledged again the applicant’s property right.
10.  On 5 February and 19 March 2007 the Stolniceni-Prăjescu Town Council informed both district and central authorities that they needed to assign land to several persons, including the applicant. As the land in question was in possession of a local company, the Town Council requested the transfer of this land into its own name for subsequent allocation to the entitled persons.
11.  The judgment of 18 November 1994 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Kosta Khetagurova, a village in Karachay-Cherkessia.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In 1990 the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying a car. The State failed to provide the car, and the applicant had to apply to a court.
7.  On 19 December 2002 the Mirninskiy District Court of Yakutia awarded the applicant 138,967 Russian roubles against the Ministry of Finance. On 5 February 2003 the judgment became binding, but was not enforced.
8.  On 15 July 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia allowed the Ministry’s supervisory-review complaint, and quashed the judgment on the ground that the district court had misinterpreted material law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Yalta.
5.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Yalta Court (Ялтинський міський суд) seeking to oblige the Yalta Council’s Executive Committee (Виконавчий комітет Ялтинської міської ради) to provide his family of five residing in a one-bedroom apartment with larger housing. In his statement of claim the applicant noted, in particular, that he had been placed on the special waiting list for disabled war veterans, which entitled him to obtain suitable housing within two years of the placement.
6.  On 4 May 2001 the court ordered the Executive Committee to provide the applicant’s family with an apartment meeting the standards established by Articles 48 and 50 of the Housing Code of Ukraine (Житловий кодекс України). By way of reasoning, the court dismissed the defendant’s allegations that no municipal housing was available at the time. The court observed in this regard that the applicant’s statutory right to obtain housing within two years of the date of the placement on the waiting list was unconditional.
7.  On 19 September 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment following cassation review and it became final.
8.  On 17 December 2002 the Yalta Bailiffs (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Ялтинського управління юстиції) initiated enforcement proceedings, having given the Executive Committee the time-limit of 17 January 2003 to comply with the judgment.
9.  In summer 2003 the enforcement proceedings were terminated on account that vacant municipal housing was lacking.
10.  On 23 March 2006 the Executive Committee decided to allocate a newly-constructed two-bedroom apartment and a one-bedroom apartment formerly belonging to a hostel to the applicant’s family.
11.  According to the applicant, the two-bedroom apartment at issue lacked necessary facilities, such as sanitary equipment and electric outlets. The apartment, which formerly belonged to a hostel, was unsuitable for establishing a permanent residence.
12.  According to the Government, the apartments at issue complied with applicable housing norms, which had been certified by competent commissions. On 27 October 2006 the applicant registered his residence in the new two-bedroom apartment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963. He is currently serving a sentence in a correction facility in Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovsk Region.
6.  On 19 August 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.
7.  On 20 August 1999 the local prosecutor remanded him in custody. The duration of the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions; the applicant unsuccessfully challenged those orders.
8.  On 30 June 2000 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and robbery and sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment.
9.  On 29 March 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration.
10.  On 23 August 2001 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court remitted the case for an additional investigation to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sverdlovsk Region. The case was then twice more sent to the court and remitted for an additional investigation, being finally referred to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil for examination in August 2002.
11.  On 27 September 2002 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court, following adversarial proceedings in the course of which several witnesses, including co-defendants, gave evidence and forensic expert reports were examined, convicted the applicant of murder and theft and imposed a sentence of thirteen years’ imprisonment for murder and five years’ imprisonment for theft, the final sentence being determined by way of partial accumulation as fifteen years’ imprisonment. During the proceedings before the first-instance court the applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment of 27 September 2002.
13.  On 20 December 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant appeared before the appeal court via videoconference from the detention facility. He was not represented by a legal-aid lawyer. According to the case file, the prosecutor was present in the courtroom but did not make any submissions. The court put only one question to the applicant during the hearing: it asked whether the applicant wished to amend his appeal.
14.  In July 2003 the applicant lodged a request for supervisory review proceedings. On 5 December 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court left this request without consideration, for the applicant’s failure to respect procedural formalities stipulated by law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.
5.  At the material time the applicant was a serviceman about to retire. Under domestic law the command had to provide retirees with housing, but none was given to the applicant, and the applicant applied to a court.
6.  On 6 June 2002 the Military Court of Rostov-on-Don held for the applicant and ordered the applicant’s command to “provide [him] with housing in accordance with legislation in force”. This judgment became binding on 7 August 2002, but was not enforced immediately.
7.  On the command’s requests, the court several times extended the time-limit for the enforcement: from 19 November 2002 to 19 February 2003, from 5 August 2004 to 5 September 2004, from 11 October 2004 to 11 November 2004.
8.  On 15 June 2004 the command offered to the applicant a at in Taganrog, but he refused from it because he wished to receive a at in Rostov-on-Don.
9.  On 31 March 2005 the applicant received a at in Rostov-on-Don.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Gdynia. He is currently detained in the Gdańsk Remand Centre.
Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention during the judicial proceedings
5.  The applicant was arrested on 12 January 1999 on suspicion of having committed homicide together with eight accomplices, and of illegal possession of arms.
6.  On 14 January 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 12 April 1999 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed homicide and the risk that he would obstruct the investigation.
7.  The applicant’s detention was extended by several decisions of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The applicant’s appeals and applications for release and applications to vary the preventive measure were unsuccessful. In their decisions the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, on the serious nature of the offences and the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. They basically relied on the same grounds as originally invoked each time they dismissed his applications for release or his requests to vary the preventive measures applied. In its decision of 16 June 1999 extending the applicant’s detention, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal added that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would abscond.
8.  On 29 July 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It appears that during the proceedings the applicant served another prison sentence, because the first-instance court counted the periods of his pre-trial detention, that is to say from 12 January 1999 until 25 May 1999 and from 26 December 2002 until 29 July 2003 (eleven months and sixteen days), towards the prison sentence.
9.  On 23 July 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2003.
10.  The applicant and other co-accused lodged appeals against the first‑instance judgment.
11.  The applicant remained in detention pending his appeal.
12.  On 16 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. It found that the trial court had incorrectly assessed evidence and had made numerous procedural mistakes. The Court of Appeal also pointed to the fact that the reasoning of the first-instance judgment had been “grossly brief and superficial”.
13.  On 11 January 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 11 April 2005. The detention was further extended on several occasions (on 23 March, 23 June and 22 December 2005 and on 30 May and 28 September 2006). At least three of the six above-mentioned decisions extending the detention were upheld following appeals by the applicant.
14.  On 6 May 2005 the case file was sent back to the first-instance court.
15.  On 25 August 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court made a severance order and considered that the applicant’s case should be dealt with separately.
16.  The proceedings are still pending and the applicant remains in detention.